This study investigates Spanish heritage speakers' perception and production of Spanish lexical stress. Stress minimal pairs in various prosodic contexts were used to examine whether heritage speakers successfully identify the stress location despite varying suprasegmental cues (Experiment 1) and whether they use these cues in their production (Experiment 2). Heritage speakers' performance was compared to that of Spanish monolinguals and English L2 learners. In Experiment 1, the heritage speakers showed a clear advantage over the L2 learners and their performance was comparable to that of the monolinguals. In Experiment 2, both the heritage speakers and the L2 learners showed deviating patterns from the monolinguals; they produced a large overlap between paroxytones and oxytones, especially in duration. The discrepancy between heritage speakers' perception and production suggests that, while early exposure to heritage language is beneficial for the perception of heritage language speech sounds, this factor alone does not guarantee target-like production.

Aims and objectives: The present study investigates how focus is prosodically realized by Spanish heritage speakers, and whether they show different patterns from Spanish monolinguals and English second language (L2) learners of Spanish. Design: Prompt questions were auditorily presented to elicit participants’ production of sentences with different scopes and locations of focus. Data and analysis: Relative prosodic prominence between focused and non-focused constituents, as well as tonal alignment, were acoustically analyzed and compared across the groups. Additional strategies that participants used are also presented. Findings: The results revealed that all three groups used multiple strategies, both prosodic and non-prosodic, to express focus in Spanish. However, the specific cues that were used differed in each group. Monolinguals and L2 learners clearly differed from each other in that the former preferred non-prosodic strategies (e.g., cleft constructions, complementizer que ‘that’), while the latter used various prosodic strategies (e.g., relative prosodic prominence, early peak alignment, post-focal deaccenting). Heritage speakers, on the other hand, used a mix of strategies that were observed in both monolinguals’ and L2 learners’ speech. Originality: Prosody is an understudied area in heritage language research. This is one of few studies that examined Spanish heritage speakers’ use of prosodic cues in the realization of focus in Spanish and the first to extensively analyze various acoustic correlates of focus produced by Spanish heritage speakers. Implication: The findings suggest that heritage speakers are flexible in their use of linguistic strategies as they are able to extract resources from their two language systems.

While heritage language phonology has attracted a great deal of attention, little is known about the development of heritage phonological grammars. This study examines the production of the Spanish trill /r/ by school-aged (9-10 years) and adult heritage speakers. Results showed that the adult heritage speakers produced the trill in a more target-like manner than the child heritage speakers, although half of them diverged from non-heritage native baselines reported in other studies. Further analysis of the distribution of trill variants suggests that heritage Spanish trill development occurs in the order of single lingual constriction → frication → multiple lingual constrictions. However, instead of abandoning variants of early stages, some adult heritage speakers kept them in their trill inventories, demonstrating increased variability. Our findings indicate that 9- to 10-year-old heritage speakers are still in the process of developing heritage phonological grammars and even during adulthood their grammars may not reach stability.

This study considers language dominance as a composite of proficiency, use, and input, and examines how these constructs in Spanish influence heritage speakers’ production of Spanish alveolar taps. Two aspects of Spanish tap production were examined: lingual constriction rates and the degree of lingual constriction. Multiple measures associated with Spanish proficiency, use, and input were reduced to a smaller number of dimensions using principal component analysis, and the effects of the components on heritage speakers’ tap production were analyzed using mixed effects modeling. The overall findings suggest that dominance in Spanish may not have an effect on the degree of lingual constriction of heritage speakers’ taps, but it does have an effect on how frequently heritage speakers produce taps with lingual constriction. Spanish use and input were found to be the main contributors to heritage speakers’ target-like production of taps.

The goal of this study is to highlight the importance of taking into account variations in monolingual grammars before discussing majority language influence as a possible source of heritage speakers’ divergent grammars. In this study, we examine the production of uptalk in Spanish by heritage speakers of Mexican Spanish in Southern California. Uptalk (i.e., rising intonation contour at the end of a non-question utterance) is frequently associated with California English. Thus, heritage speakers’ use of uptalk is often considered to be influenced from English intonation (i.e., the majority language). Although uptalk in Spanish is not well understood, it has been observed in Mexican Spanish, which calls attention to the importance of investigating uptalk in monolingual Spanish. Using a dyadic interaction task, we obtained spontaneous speech data of 16 heritage speakers and 16 monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish and compared the phonological and phonetic properties of uptalks produced by the two groups. Our results demonstrated that the heritage speakers and the monolingual speakers produced uptalks with similar frequencies and mainly used L+H* HH% and L* HH% contours. However, the two groups had more differences than similarities. Specifically, heritage speakers’ uptalks presented less dynamic contours and were produced with flatter rises than monolinguals’ uptalks. Heritage speakers’ divergent patterns showed close resemblance with patterns in English, suggesting majority language influence as a valid source of divergence. We discuss possible avenues for future research for a better understanding of the role of majority language influence on heritage Spanish uptalk.